Intrinsic No More
I glance at the clock in my personality psychology classroom, seeing we have enough time for a little discussion. I have just told the two hundred students, most in their early twenties, about two types of life goals—those labeled by psychologists as intrinsic (meaning, helping others, learning) and those known as extrinsic (money, fame, and image). “Which of these do you think is more important to your generation?” I ask. “And why?” A man near the back raises his hand. “Money,” he says. “Because of income inequality.” Several students nod, and a woman raises her hand. “It’s harder now to afford what our parents had. We’ve got student loans, and everything is so expensive,” she says. In other words, money is more important than meaning.
If you’ve read media portrayals of this generation, these views might surprise you; aren’t today’s young people increasingly interested in finding meaning? For example, a 2013 New York Times op-ed cited a survey finding that young adults named meaning as the most important thing they were looking for in a career. However, that survey queried only recent young people, with no comparison to previous generations when they were young—or even to older people at the moment. Data comparing the generations tell a different story.
In brief: money is in, and meaning is out. Entering college students are more likely to say it’s important to become very well off financially (an extrinsic value), and less likely to say it’s important to develop a meaningful philosophy of life (an intrinsic value; see Figure 6.8; these numbers are corrected for recent generations’ tendency to rate everything as more important—noted on the graphs as “corrected for relative centrality,” which is explained in more detail in Appendix A). Even without the correction, the differences are large, with 82% of 2016 students saying that “becoming very well off financially” is important versus 47% saying “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” is important).
Figure 6.8. Percentage of entering college students who believe that life goals are “essential” or “very important,” adjusted for relative centrality. American Freshman Survey, 1967–2016.
The vast majority of this shift occurred between Boomers (in college in the 1960s and 1970s) and GenX (in college in the 1980s and 1990s). Millennials’ beliefs mostly stabilized at GenX levels in the 2000s, but then iGen continued the increase in the importance of being well off and the decrease in the importance of meaning. Even more than the Millennials just before them, iGen’ers think that making a lot of money—winning the economic race—is important. That’s a far cry from the idea that the recession would reset the culture toward more meaning and less materialism—instead, the opposite occurred.
In the booming economy of the 1960s, Boomers figured they could count on getting a good job straight out of college, which freed them to contemplate philosophies of life. iGen’ers have no such faith in an easy economic road. They figure they need to focus on paying the bills, which include a staggering pile of student debt that may make it difficult for them to spend much time contemplating the meaning of life.
Another likely influence on the desire for wealth is screen time. Watching TV and surfing the web expose young people to more advertisements, more bling-bling-style wealth, and less intellectual stimulation. In general, modern TV and the Internet provide brief, vivid slices of opinion, often devoid of nuance, in contrast to the content of books. “We distract ourselves online with unimportant things and we are always being ‘entertained,’ ” wrote Vivian, 22. “We have stopped looking at life and its deeper meaning and have instead immersed ourselves in a world where the big stuff people think about is how many likes they got on an Instagram post.”
Focusing on money, fame, and image is a common pattern among people high in narcissism. Unlike Millennials, however, iGen’ers do not score particularly high in narcissism; scores peaked around 2008 and have been in decline ever since (see Appendix E). iGen’ers are not as overconfident, entitled, or grandiose as Millennials were at the same age, which in many ways is a positive development. However, some of that narcissism has been replaced with disengagement and cynicism—and that first appears in the classroom.
I’m Here Only Because I Have to Be: Attitudes Toward School and College
One student is slumped in his chair, half asleep or dozing—not just today but every day. Another sits upright, engaged and interested. Every teacher would rather have the second student in the classroom. So which one is iGen?
Unfortunately, more are now like the first student, disengaged and not so sure he wants to be there. Teens’ interest in school took a sudden plunge beginning around 2012, with fewer students saying they found school interesting, enjoyable, or meaningful (see Figure 6.9). The strong push for technology in the classroom seems to have assuaged students’ boredom during the 2000s, but by the 2010s little in the classroom could compete with the allure of the ever-tempting smartphone.
Figure 6.9. 12th graders’ intrinsic motivation to go to school. Monitoring the Future, 1976–2015.
iGen’ers aren’t even convinced that their education will help them get good jobs or give them information they will need later. Fewer 12th graders now believe that school will help them later in life, and fewer believe that doing well in school is important for getting a good job (see Figure 6.10). Increasingly, high school students don’t really see the point in going to school. High school teachers, whose jobs were already challenging, now face students who think that what they’re learning is irrelevant to their lives and future careers. Within the space of a few years, both their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for going to school have tanked.
Figure 6.10. Extrinsic motivation for school, 12th graders. Monitoring the Future, 1976–2015.
Schools try to keep up with technology, but things change so quickly that they can never catch up, and students know it. Thirteen-year-old Athena says that at her middle school in Houston, Texas, “They want us to learn everything out of a book, the same way they taught everybody fifty years ago, but that’s not how we learn anymore. Books don’t help us learn anything anymore, because it might not be true.” She describes several cases in which the textbook and online sites disagreed over aspects of Texas history, a required 7th-grade class. “Which one, the book or what’s online, do you think is right more often?” I ask. “Online,” she answers. “Why do you think that is?” I ask. “Because the books are fifty years old, and stuff has been proven differently,” she says. In her science class, she says, “everything’s online. We get tablets—they give us websites we can look up, and then we look it up online and whatever pops up on those sites that we’re allowed to go on, that’s what we go off,” she says. Their math books are updated every year, but, she says, “we don’t use them—we just use our tablets. We have the book in case our tablet dies.” Like Athena, many iGen students seem to see their schools as behind the times, irrelevant in a fast-paced world of constantly changing technology.
Even in college, where students have more of a choice about being there, a similar pattern emerges: compared to previous generations, iGen’ers are more focused on getting a better job and less focused on getting a general education (see Figure 6.11). iGen college students believe they are in class so that they can get a better job once they are out of class. Learning is less important.
Figure 6.11. Reasons for going to college (corrected for relative centrality), entering college students. American Freshman Survey, 1971–2016.
Overall, iGen’ers are more practical than the generations before them. Career advancement has always been an important reason to go to college, but its importance has zoomed up in recent years. More iGen’ers find no joy in school, and more are cynical about its importance. School and college are now a means to an end—and high school students aren’t even sure it is the right means anymore.
These attitudes have contributed to the college campus controversies of recent years. To Boomer, GenX’er, and even many Millennial faculty and administrators, college is a place for learning and explo
ration, and that includes being exposed to ideas different from your own. That, they believe, is the whole point of going to college in the first place. iGen’ers disagree: college, they feel, is a place to prepare for a career in a safe environment. Not only are different ideas potentially upsetting and thus unsafe, but there’s no point in studying them because getting a good job is much more important. This “consumer mentality” of students arrived some time ago, during the GenX 1990s, but when iGen’ers combine it with their interest in safety, it ratchets up another notch. When exploring ideas was something your Boomer professor wanted, GenX’ers and Millennials could go along with that. iGen’ers’ interest in safety leads them to balk at the idea that college should mean exploring new and different ideas—what if they aren’t “emotionally safe”? And what does this have to do with getting a good job and earning money? This generational gulf in values, with Boomers favoring ideas and iGen’ers safety and practicality, helps explain why the two generations struggle to understand each other’s viewpoints when controversial ideas arrive on campus.
Caring and Community
At the height of the Great Recession in 2009, Time magazine theorized that the economic collapse would mean “the end of excess,” with the culture undergoing a “reset” that would banish the over-the-top indulgence of the mid-2000s and usher in a new era of caring and communalism.
iGen’ers were children and adolescents at the time, so many observers guessed that they would embody that silver lining to the recession, growing up more concerned for others and more involved in their communities. iGen is also the first completely post-Internet generation, and many people hope that the power of online communities will bring us together and effect change. After all, worthy causes are easier to publicize, and you can donate to a charity by merely sending a text. That has led some analysts to guess that iGen’ers will be more inclined to help others.
And they are—compared to the Millennials just before them, more iGen entering college students say it’s important to “help others in difficulty” and more high school students say that “making a contribution to society” is important. More iGen high school seniors say they want jobs that help others and are worthwhile to society, bringing those values back to the levels of Boomers in the 1970s. From these data, we might conclude that iGen’ers want to make a difference in the world. They are dreaming big and including an altruistic vision in those dreams.
However, they have not quite mastered making those dreams a reality. Fewer iGen’ers express empathy for those unlike themselves. For example, more iGen’ers agree with or take a neutral stance on stark statements such as “It’s not really my problem if others are in trouble and need help” and “Maybe some minority groups do get unfair treatment, but that’s no business of mine.” They say that helping others is important, but at least in some circumstances they don’t think that help needs to come from them (see Figure 6.12).
Figure 6.12. Percentage who agree that “helping others in difficulty” and “making a contribution to society” is important, average agreement with eight items on “empathy for others” and “being willing to donate” to nine different charities, 12th graders (Monitoring the Future) and entering college students (American Freshman Survey), 1968–2016.
The disconnect between statements and actions appears even more starkly in willingness to donate to charities (see Figure 6.12). Support for charities enjoyed a brief resurgence during the recession years but then continued to slide, reaching an all-time low in 2015. (The survey asks about actual donations and willingness to donate to nine different types of charities, including international relief organizations, minority-group organizations, environmental groups, and charities fighting diseases.)
Overall, iGen’ers want to contribute but are not as inclined to take action. Apparently they agree that altruism is important but have trouble following through. Their always online lives, with lots of talk but not much action, may have something to do with that. “People will post on social media about ‘helping more,’ but a social media post isn’t truly helping anything at all,” pointed out Chris, 21. Online, this is sometimes called “slactivism.” On the other hand, iGen’ers have mastered the art of joining the bandwagon of viral social media causes, which at least brings awareness to issues. iGen’ers may grow into adults who are skilled at forwarding links about worthy causes but not as skilled at actually getting involved. Or this may change or already be changing, with iGen’ers spurred to action to defend the cause of equality. If the 2017 women’s march and protests against Trump’s policies are the beginning of a new movement, iGen’ers might be taking steps toward action as well as talk.
What Are They Learning Online?
The Internet has tremendous potential for information gathering and activism. In 2011, young people in the Middle East used social media to organize protests and effect change in their countries during the Arab Spring. Many have hoped that the Internet would also increase civic engagement among US youths, allowing them to easily access news and information and gain empathy for others by interacting with people around the world.
So has it? To answer that question, we can look at the links between time spent online and important values and behaviors. We can contrast community involvement that focuses on helping others (thinking about social issues, being willing to solve environmental problems, and taking action to help others), with individualistic attitudes that focus on individual rights and individual pleasures (supporting gender equality, thinking it’s desirable to have friends of other races, feeling entitled to wealth without putting in effort, and valuing materialism—these are a mix of what most consider “good” and “bad,” but they are all features of individualistic societies).
The results are unequivocal: teens who spend more time on social media are more likely to value individualistic attitudes and less likely to value community involvement. Heavy users of social media are 45% more likely to believe it’s important to own expensive material things such as new cars and vacation homes, and they are 14% less likely to say they think about the social issues affecting the nation and the world (see Figure 6.13). Overall, teens who use social media more are less engaged with larger social issues. The good news is that they are supportive of equality of race and gender, one of the primary outcomes of individualism. But they are also less civically engaged and feel more entitled to things even if they don’t work for them.
Figure 6.13. Relative risk of individualistic (black) and civic/caring (gray) attitudes and behaviors from spending 10+ hours a week on social media sites, 12th graders. Monitoring the Future, 2013–2015.
Total time spent online is more weakly related to values. The community involvement of those who spend a lot of time online is about average: they are a little more likely than low-Internet users to think about social issues but a little less likely to want to help the environment, help starving people, or know what political party they belong to. Heavy Internet use is not as strongly linked to low civic engagement as heavy social media use is, but it also doesn’t improve interest in community involvement. Like social media use, Internet use is linked to individualistic attitudes (see Figure 6.14).
Figure 6.14. Relative risk of individualistic (black) and civic/caring (gray) attitudes and behaviors from spending 20+ hours a week on the Internet during leisure time, 12th graders. Monitoring the Future, 2013–2015.
Overall, Internet use does not mean high community involvement. That’s true over time as well: as we’ll see in chapter 10, the always online iGen is actually less interested in news and current events than previous generations were. iGen’ers can certainly use the Internet for community involvement, and many do. But those who spend the most hours online aren’t doing that; they are playing video games with their friends, exchanging funny pictures on Snapchat, and watching YouTube videos of cats falling into toilets. The picture for social media sites is worse: they are not only no hotbed of community involvement but are most frequently used by teens who are l
ess inclined toward interest in politics, social issues, and the environment.
The strongest legacy of iGen’ers’ involvement in the online world may be their increased physical safety. They are spending more time on their phones and computers and less time driving and seeing their friends in person, and as a result their physical safety has reached unprecedented levels. They are less willing to take chances, and their definition of safety has expanded to include their emotions as well as their bodies. The more they use words to communicate, the less they put their bodies at risk and the more they put their emotions at risk. It’s no wonder, then, that iGen’ers yearn for a safe space where they can be protected. Within that space, they are more likely to support the idea of helping others but less likely to venture out to actually provide that help.
Chapter 7
* * *
iGen Page 17
